Karissa McKelvey:  In the 18th, 19th centuries it was thought that property ownership was the only way to protect common resources such as grazing pastures. Garrett Hardin famously put it: “The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers.”

It was thought that communities that only act in rational self interest destroy the common pool resource they are sharing. This is described as “the tragedy of the commons”: that isolated, autonomous individuals will always choose the path best for them as individuals.

Elinor Ostrom introduced a new body of research to challenge this. Over 40 years of research, she was able to prove that Hardin exaggerated the problems involved in managing a commons. In 2009, Elinor Ostrom was the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in economics. She talked about how people actually are able to come to together to form norms and rules that sustain their mutual cooperation. For example, she went to Nepal and studied how people there were managing their own irrigation systems. She found that if communities simply follow eight principles, a sort of blueprint, communities use to self-govern and sustain the resource without depleting it.

What about applying this to the internet? Before her death in 2012 Ostrom published a book with Charlotee Hess called Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. This book laid the groundwork for thinking of digital knowledge as a commons (that is the digital artifacts in libraries, wikis, open source code, scientific articles, and everything in between).

The Internet as a Commons

Looking at the internet as a commons — as a shared resource — allows us to understand both its unlimited possibilities and also what threatens it.

What threatens the internet? Right now, private companies that control large parts of the internet are trying to prevent the internet of commons. If products fail or are deemed not economically viable (for example Vine, Google Reader, etc), the whole suffers. Monopolies, like Google, are able to keep their power by influencing the political landscape. However, in the internet of commons, monopolies are no longer in control, and users would be trusted to self-govern the commons.

Decentralization has been the most recent proposal as our technological means to get away from this and give the power to users. In a decentralized world, users get to control the contracts of the website, can choose to fork that website, re-host data to fix broken links, evade censorship, and overall take ownership of their data. Freedom of expression, privacy, and universal access to all knowledge should be inherent to the web. But right now, those values are not.

Locking the Web Open

Thinking of the internet as a commons allows us to think of different ways we can moderate and grow spaces, allow innovation to flourish, and improve the quality of knowledge and information sharing. As Brewster Kahle puts it, decentralization ‘Locks the Web Open.’

I’m not just dreaming of a new world with Brewster Kahle about the future of the internet. The internet of commons is here today. Peer-to-peer (p2p) applications already exist, are being built, as well as used by real users as we speak — you can build one too! Secure Scuttlebutt, for example, is a completely p2p protocol for syncing data. Patchwork is a social networking application built on top of the Secure Scuttlebutt Protocol. People can join a public server and make friends, then use a gossip approach to find friends of friends. Many early adopters come from IRC and have started using it instead of IRC. It’s immensely successful as a little protocol and you can build something with it today.

Dat is inspired by BitTorrent and built in a similar fashion to Scuttlebutt. It is a decentralized protocol for storing, versioning, and syncing streams of potentially very large datasets. We’re a non-profit, funded by grants and, so far, we’ve operated more like a research lab than a company.

A foundational part of what we’ve been doing for the past three years is to work with university labs, libraries, researchers, and universities to help them manage their scientific data. Scientific articles and their related data are very specific and yet good use case for a commons approach to the internet.

As companies privatize data they create silos or they put up paywalls, and prevent the growth of the commons — another kind of enclosure. This means that certain people with power close the pathways into the commons so that they can profit from it… but it actually detracts from everyone’s ability to use it and also prevents its ability to flourish. Innovation suffers, as fewer people have access to the knowledge and it is much harder to produce contributions that could improve that research. The rationale given for companies to create paywalls is that it is expensive to collect, store, organize, present, and provide bandwidth for the billions of pages of articles and datasets.

Decentralization is a clear way we can reduce the costs of this hosting and bandwidth — as more people come to download the articles and data from the journal or library or university, the faster it gets. The dream is that universities could turn their currently siloed servers into a common resource that is shared amongst many universities. This would cut costs for everyone, improve download speed, and reduce the likelihood that data is lost.

Decentralization of data produces challenges though — just like a torrent, data that is decentralized can go offline if there aren’t any stable and trusted peers. In the case of scientific data, this is an immense failure. To mitigate it, we invoke the human part of a commons — the data will be commonly managed. For example, we can detect how many copies are available in different places, just like a BitTorrent, and compute health for a dat — for example, a dat hosted at the Internet Archive, University of Pennsylvania, and UC Berkeley is probably very healthy and has low probability of ever going offline, while a dat hosted by 5 laptops might go down tomorrow — even though there are more peers. When a dat becomes less healthy, the community can be alerted and make sure the resource does not go down. Decentralized tech and decentralized humans working together to use commons methodology in practice.

Along with this, what we get by design is that links can last forever, no matter what server they are hosted on — using a decentralized network based on cryptographic links and integrity checks allow many servers to host the same content without security risks, a property not present in http.

This concept of decentralization isn’t new. The internet was built upon the concept of it being very resilient, that if a node failed, it’d find another way to get information to other computers. The internet was originally decentralized, but over time it became clear that centralized parties were needed to fund and maintain websites on the internet. The move towards decentralization is almost a yearning for the past, a way to get around this really centralized section of internet history.

Building the Future

A way we’ve been thinking about building protocols for decentralization is looking to how current popular protocols were developed and mirroring those methods. Current very popular modes for transfer were developed by people like Tim Berners-Lee (CERN, www) and Vint Cerf (DARPA TCP/IP) who worked in research labs. They gave away their protocols for free to the public, as products of scientific inquiry. The secret sauce of what they did was to craft open standards that don’t need permission to use and reuse, prioritized usability, and involved no or low barriers to access. Even Google was founded from two folks in a university lab, who published their search algorithm PageRank.

Today, I look at the decentralized landscape in context of what these people were doing back in the day and wonder if we’re continuing their legacy. Ideally, new decentralized protocols could be built into browsers that people already use today. Alongside http://, we imagine dat:// view websites or data from a distributed network (which you can now do with the Beaker Browser!).

I look at initial coin offerings (ICOs) and new blockchain companies that claim to be revolutionizing the way we work on the internet, and I’m not seeing this same model. I’m seeing white papers that are published, and sometimes even implemented in open source. But if you look at what they propose, many offer siloed networks that are privatized, with money being invested into specialized coins that create new enclosures. A big component of these ICOs are trust-less networks, which remove the human elements of trust and social groups from the network.

Decentralization then, is not just a technological problem, it is also a human one. Researchers at MIT have been looking into many of these decentralized tools and are reaching similar conclusions — the technical problems are hard but we must solve the social and people problems if we want to progress: “Decentralized web advocates have good intentions, but there is no silver-bullet technical solution for the challenges that lie ahead.”

To top it off, over $1.6 billion was invested in these ICOs in the past year alone. Where are we going? Is the future of decentralization going to be rooted in paywalls and coins, with the management of those coins and that technology trusted to a single individual or group? Is that really where we want to end up?

With a commons approach to the decentralized web, the most ideal approach is guided from where we came. I am much more excited about creating protocols that are easy to use, develop with, and extend without asking for permission and without paying or having much money at all. That means that they are driven by the community, built for the public good, and given away for free. If the company or organization dies, the protocols should still be usable. Any blockchains involved should not be tied to a particular for-profit company. I should not be tying my data to any one coin or blockchain for fear of enclosure. The protocols should be optimizing for science(broadly speaking, as in developing knowledge) and mutual collaboration rather than optimizing for profit. Let us not recreate the problem we are trying to solve.

Photo by n.a.t.u.r.e

The post Karissa McKelvey on the Web of Commons appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Traditional anti-capitalism focused on the ownership of the means of production, yet the modern capitalist doesn’t even want to own the means of production, they want to own the very right to produce. To control the ideas required to produce and simply charge rents for these ideas.

This short text by Dmytri Kleiner was originally published in his mailing list back in 2011. It’s still as relevant now as it was back then.

Dmytri Kleiner: In the meantime, I’d like to reflect a little on Evgeny Morozov’s keynote at #28c3 this morning.

The topic was Surveillance Enabling Technologies. Long story short, Telecoms, Tech Firms, and Governments are developing and deploying systems to control and monitor their citizens online communications, and even selling this technology to governments that are widely considered to be authoritarian. It’s this last bit that I want to expand upon a little.

As Evgeny mentioned, as did others asking questions from the audience, this can not be understood as a few unscrupulous firms making sinister deals with foreign powers to profit from the suppression of dissidents and activists. For this most part these firms are not designing and building surveillance technologies at the behest of the likes of Iran and Syria, but as result driven by law enforcement in western states. And what’s more, they are required by laws passed by western states to build-in the very backdoors and interception features that surveillance systems depend on. It’s hard to blame the companies for building in features that the law requires them to build in.

Expressing outrage that enemies of the US and it’s allies are using the technology being developed by the west also seems misplaced, and rests on regressive exceptionalist view that privileges western states as being somehow noble enough to be trusted with the ability to survey their citizens, but not sinister foreign powers.

Though certain firms are clearly beyond the pale in their eagerness to promote their freedom-denying technology. This overall view that these firms or some foreign powers are to blame was largely rejected by Morozov and by the commentators from the #28c3 audience. The blame for increased interception of communications and technological surveillance is best place at the feet of western governments, whose laws, law enforcement agencies and military-industrial corporate lobbies are the real movers and shakers pushing for more and more control and monitoring of civilian populations.

Promotors of such mass surveillance systems claim to be defending civilization itself, from the usual array of boogeymen, including terrorists, and child pornographers, but make no mistake, their real target is freedom itself.

These systems are part of the process of destroying peer-to-peer communications, to eliminate the mesh topologies from modern communication platforms and restructure them as star topologies, and the major reason for this is not to hunt deviants or insurgents, but rather to control the consumer, and protect Capitalist privilege and profits.

In The Telekommunist Manifesto, as well as other texts, I discuss that fact that Capitalism and Peer-to-peer systems are not compatible, that Capitalism depends on the ability of platform owners to control user data and interaction, in order to monetize it. Such control is a prerequisite of receiving financial capital from investors, who understand very well that there are no profits, or more accurately rents, to be had from free networks, and thus insist on control to ensure a return their investments.

The Internet, as it exists now, is an existential threat to capitalist regimes, not only does it allow individual users and groups to collectively share information that reveals the cosy relationship between governments and rent seeking corporate lobbies, more importantly it allows new forms of commerce that blur the distinction of producer and consumer, and allow users to produce and share in new ways, such fluidity of interactions puts downward pressure of profits as people share amongst themselves and “cut out the middleman,” as commerce becomes disintermediated.

This threat is of particular concern with regard to intellectual property, which can be digitized and sent across computer networks. This is bad news for western economies who more and more aim to make their profits by owning ideas and designs, while letting others actually make things. Traditional anti-capitalism focused on the ownership of the means of production, yet the modern capitalist doesn’t even want to own the means of production, they want to own the very right to produce. To control the ideas required to produce and simply charge rents for these ideas.

Capitalism thus depends on the elimination of peer-to-peer systems by replacing, freedom-enabling mesh topologies, with freedom-denying star topologies. Recent communication history illustrates this quite clearly, with Venture Capital funding Web 2.0s capture of all communications, replacing earlier and far more scalable p2p applications, and the military-industrial fueled enclosure of cyberspace is just another part of this.

Evgeny Morozov suggests that we act and get the media and our political representatives to take notice and lead an outcry against this rapidly increasing lock-down of our online platforms, yet this requires that our media and our politicians will rally against capitalism, since it’s not just a few rogue firms or states driving this development, but rather the requirements of our class structure.

At the bottom of it, Capitalism, as a system based on hierarchy, privilege and exploitation, can not create a free network, anymore than it can create a free society. If there is a way out this, it’s unlikely to be governments and popular news organisations that help us. Our only chance is to develop new ways of producing and sharing, and find ways to build communication platforms that do not depend on capitalist finance.

If we do not find ways to replace capitalist finance it is not only the internet as we know it that we will lose, but the chance the remake society in its image.

Photo by carious.photography

The post Is capitalism compatible with free P2P Systems? appeared first on P2P Foundation.